5 ms·

Cool site, but the News Ticker is absolutely infested with debunked 9/11 truther "evidence". (Go to the point where the first plane hits and the point where eac

by koboll 5y ago

Cool site, but the News Ticker is absolutely infested with debunked 9/11 truther "evidence". (Go to the point where the first plane hits and the point where each tower collapses, and you'll see what I mean.) The whole thing kinda seems like a sly attempt by a truther to indoctrinate schoolkids. A little distasteful.

boomboomsubban 5y ago
A lot of the "truther" nonsense came from the day of the attack when nobody really had any idea what the hell was happening. It wasn't immediately clear that a plane hit the first tower to cause the damage, it wasn't clear it was an attack and not an accident until the second plane hit, and it wasn't clear the planes alone caused the collapse for days at least. Hell, for like an hour the Pentagon attack was considered either a potentially unrelated fire or a missile attack. It's unfortunate that this at the moment reporting can reinforce conspiracy theories, but maintaining the uncertainty felt during the day provides a benefit. Much of the day was filled with shock and confusion, with everybody watching the news to try and figure out what was happening.
- 8bitsrule 5y ago
  After the Pentagon was hit, I recall looking at early images of the wall supposedly struck by a Boing 757 (Fl 77) going hundreds of miles an hour. The size of the hole didn't look jet-sized. There were no visible wing or engine marks on the nearby walls. No videos emerged to show what struck the wall or knocked down the light standards. Physically, to this day, that whole scenario is confusing, and there's been little evidence to clarify it.
  - boomboomsubban 5y ago
    Images of the wall came hours if not days later, at first basically all the coverage had was one nearby road camera moved to show smoke. There has been ample evidence of what happened. Though there is little video footage, only a few frames from low quality security cams, there are many pictures of the wreckage showing debris from a plane. At 10 AM on 9/11 it was unclear what happened. Now it's very clear.
  - IAmGraydon 5y ago
    I really wish people would stop with this “no airplane parts” narrative. Do you know what happens to airplane parts when the hit a concrete wall at over 500 mph? You clearly don’t, so let me clarify: complete obliteration. They found parts of the airplane, but nothing big enough that you would recognized it as an airplane part unless you were an expert on the matter.
- bamboozled 5y ago
  It's funny because when I watch that footage back now, it feels almost scripted, like the day progressed so quickly, it went from the attacks themselves, to clearly identifying the enemy and discussions about retaliatory action within hours. I am not saying that its the truth, but I cannot help feeling like it was all a little bit scripted.

by koboll 5y ago

boomboomsubban 5y ago

A lot of the "truther" nonsense came from the day of the attack when nobody really had any idea what the hell was happening. It wasn't immediately clear that a plane hit the first tower to cause the damage, it wasn't clear it was an attack and not an accident until the second plane hit, and it wasn't clear the planes alone caused the collapse for days at least. Hell, for like an hour the Pentagon attack was considered either a potentially unrelated fire or a missile attack. It's unfortunate that this at the moment reporting can reinforce conspiracy theories, but maintaining the uncertainty felt during the day provides a benefit. Much of the day was filled with shock and confusion, with everybody watching the news to try and figure out what was happening.

8bitsrule 5y ago
After the Pentagon was hit, I recall looking at early images of the wall supposedly struck by a Boing 757 (Fl 77) going hundreds of miles an hour. The size of the hole didn't look jet-sized. There were no visible wing or engine marks on the nearby walls. No videos emerged to show what struck the wall or knocked down the light standards. Physically, to this day, that whole scenario is confusing, and there's been little evidence to clarify it.
- boomboomsubban 5y ago
  Images of the wall came hours if not days later, at first basically all the coverage had was one nearby road camera moved to show smoke. There has been ample evidence of what happened. Though there is little video footage, only a few frames from low quality security cams, there are many pictures of the wreckage showing debris from a plane. At 10 AM on 9/11 it was unclear what happened. Now it's very clear.
- IAmGraydon 5y ago
  I really wish people would stop with this “no airplane parts” narrative. Do you know what happens to airplane parts when the hit a concrete wall at over 500 mph? You clearly don’t, so let me clarify: complete obliteration. They found parts of the airplane, but nothing big enough that you would recognized it as an airplane part unless you were an expert on the matter.
bamboozled 5y ago
It's funny because when I watch that footage back now, it feels almost scripted, like the day progressed so quickly, it went from the attacks themselves, to clearly identifying the enemy and discussions about retaliatory action within hours. I am not saying that its the truth, but I cannot help feeling like it was all a little bit scripted.